Alabama CBS affiliate censors "60 Minutes"

[jal41]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/media-blackout-update-pakistan-and-alabama/?hp

WHNT Huntsville delberately blacked out a 60 Minutes report on a former Alabama governor serving time in prision. The alagation include Karl Rove trying to get pictures of the Governor in a compromising position.

The station keeps changing its story, but one version has them admitting they did it. They claimed to have aired the report in its entirty during their late news (can anyone verify this?). Reports are out that WHNT put a text on-screen saying the report would not be available (which would only be put up if there was censorship).

The WHNT web site contains a response from the Alabama GOP, with a disclaimer that the Alabama GOP paid WHNT for the response.

WHNT response http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7922709
Paid for response by GOP http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7920333

WHNT is owned by Local TV, which is run by Randy Michaels, formerly of Clear Channel. Need I say more.

The station censored the report, period. The FCC needs to investigate, and the Alabama Democratic party should exercise any rights it may have (if any) to use the facilitites of WHNT for an on-air response. WHNT needs to be fined, and whomever responsible needs to lose their job.

 

[imhomerjay]

Here's the thing--censorship isn't forbidden in this case, i.e., when a private-sector entity chooses not to air something.

That doesn't make it 'right' or 'wrong,' just legal. Although the FCC really shouldn't have any say in the matter, that's certainly never stopped them from putting their nose in where it doesn't belong.

I agree it doesn't pass the smell test, but that, in and of itself, doesn't warrant government intervention. Remember the saying to be careful what you wish for--every time the government manages to force its way in to something, they end up making things worse in the long run.

 

[jal41]

Here's the thing--censorship isn't forbidden in this case, i.e., when a private-sector entity chooses not to air something.

That doesn't make it 'right' or 'wrong,' just legal. Although the FCC really shouldn't have any say in the matter, that's certainly never stopped them from putting their nose in where it doesn't belong.

I agree it doesn't pass the smell test, but that, in and of itself, doesn't warrant government intervention. Remember the saying to be careful what you wish for--every time the government manages to force its way in to something, they end up making things worse in the long run.

Federal law requires all TV and radio stations to act in the public interest. Censoring a story based on your (the station's) political views is not in the public interest. Therefore...if you blackout a story because it shows your political friends in a bad light...you are in violation of federal law. A 5-year-old could tell you what WHNT did was wrong.

Of course...I don't see anything happening in with the Republican-controlled FCC. I do see something happening in the Democratically-controlled Congress. Nonetheless, some action needs to be taken against WHNT.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Considering it was a technical issue and they re-aired it twice since then (don't let facts get in your way) I don't see what the problem is. I have heard it was Rove, Bush and the illuminati. If you work in radio or TV you know stuff happens, sometimes at the damnest time.

There was nothing new in that story and there was no attempt to cover it up.

WHNT is owned by Local TV, which is run by Randy Michaels, formerly of Clear Channel. Need I say more.

If you want to be taken seriously you do. The station is owned by Oak Hill Partners, again those pesky facts.

The station censored the report, period. The FCC needs to investigate, and the Alabama Democratic party should exercise any rights it may have (if any) to use the facilitites of WHNT for an on-air response.

They need to buy the time as the GOP did.

WHNT needs to be fined, and whomever responsible needs to lose their job.

Responsible for what? A technical issue? They ran the story at 10 and today. I love it, first the story was different parts of Alabama and now the story is one station. One station does not a conspiracy make.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

In one of those extremely rare instances, I'm siding this time with Dale, who even posted a link to the video on today's show notes.

http://www.wvnn.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=642

Repeating the segment twice, including during last night's late news, sounds like "make good" to me.

As for Randy Michaels...it may interest you to know that he is also the man who brought Ed Schultz to national syndication.

 

[DaleGriffin]

In one of those extremely rare instances, I'm siding this time with Dale, who even posted a link to the video on today's show notes.

http://www.wvnn.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=642

Repeating the segment twice, including during last night's late news, sounds like "make good" to me.

As for Randy Michaels...it may interest you to know that he is also the man who brought Ed Schultz to national syndication.

I pretty much ran the whole thing on my program this morning too.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

In one of those extremely rare instances, I'm siding this time with Dale, who even posted a link to the video on today's show notes.

http://www.wvnn.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=642

Repeating the segment twice, including during last night's late news, sounds like "make good" to me.

As for Randy Michaels...it may interest you to know that he is also the man who brought Ed Schultz to national syndication.

I pretty much ran the whole thing on my program this morning too.

That is admirable. Perhaps I can get Stephanie Miller to call your show when I see her Saturday night. She just might get you to forget Neil Boortz...at least on one of your signals.

 

[DToTheJ]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/media-blackout-update-pakistan-and-alabama/?hp

WHNT Huntsville delberately blacked out a 60 Minutes report on a former Alabama governor serving time in prision. The alagation include Karl Rove trying to get pictures of the Governor in a compromising position.

WHNT is owned by Local TV, which is run by Randy Michaels, formerly of Clear Channel. Need I say more.

You'd think such a plan would be engineered by a station owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, which has long been accused of pushing its own propaganda on local affiliates for years...

 

[chuckydoll]

This was brought up last week in a column about the Don Siegelman case. Now the FCC may conduct its own investigation into WHNT-19.

This sounds a lot like what WLBT-3 in Mississippi did in the days of segregation. WLBT routinely went to black whenever a black person appeared on camera. Church groups used that to petition the FCC to revoke WLBT's broadcast license; the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Commission's action was upheld.

For the record WHNT-19 was owned by the New York Times Co. until the Times sold its TV stations last year.

 

[DaleGriffin]

This sounds a lot like what WLBT-3 in Mississippi did in the days of segregation. WLBT routinely went to black whenever a black person appeared on camera. Church groups used that to petition the FCC to revoke WLBT's broadcast license; the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Commission's action was upheld.

Wow what a ridiculous thing to say. Care to back that statement up with some comparisions?

 

[FreddyE1977]

I am certain that WHNT has been airing far-left biased slanted reporting on 60 Minutes (including the
infamous Bush National Guard story that cost Dan Rather his career) for as long as the show has been
on. Why would they suddenly choose to censor this one story in this one particular instance? It does
not make sense.

 

[chuckydoll]

Dale, all you have to do is google WLBT license revoked and you'll find out about what turned out to be a landmark legal case.

BTW my first remark was wrong. The WLBT license was renewed by the FCC but revoked on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court refused to overturn the appellate court.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Dale, all you have to do is google WLBT license revoked and you'll find out about what turned out to be a landmark legal case.

BTW my first remark was wrong. The WLBT license was renewed by the FCC but revoked on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court refused to overturn the appellate court.

Great non-answer, how about you tell me how these two cases. You are the one that stated it was like the other case...

This sounds a lot like what WLBT-3 in Mississippi did in the days of segregation. WLBT routinely went to black whenever a black person appeared on camera. Church groups used that to petition the FCC to revoke WLBT's broadcast license; the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Commission's action was upheld.

...now explain.

 

[imhomerjay]

Now the FCC may conduct its own investigation into WHNT-19.

Fantastic! More of my tax money wasted by a bloated agency led by someone who's never met an investigation he didn't want to waste time with.

 

[genius]

Actually I believe the equipment failure story. So many stations have crashed over the last couple of years due to a meltdown with technology. Hey, computers are only as smart as their user, and I don't doubt smaller market stations are still using outdated equipment or "fancy" equipment that came oddly cheap. Remember that viewers are fickle, so failures like these and ones like at higher-profile stations like WHDH in Boston and WFSB in Hartford will come at a price

I have a feeling any FCC investigation will find nothing viable other than some really bad timing. And if the NY Times hadn't owned this station in the past, I doubt an editorial would have been published.

BTW Dale, though I am more familiar with the WLNS license case, here's the WLBT story:

http://www.southernspaces.org/contents/2004/thomas/4g.htm

 

[DaleGriffin]

BTW Dale, though I am more familiar with the WLNS license case, here's the WLBT story:

http://www.southernspaces.org/contents/2004/thomas/4g.htm

I know the history, I just don't get the comparison. I asked the guy who made the comparison to explain and got this PM calling me stupid...

As I said in the WHNT/60 Minutes thread, all you have to do is google WLBT license revoked.

I did that to keep the thread from getting hijacked. If you have to question why I did that you're either stupid or too lazy.

I do not do the PM thing, everything can be said on here. If you are going to throw out stupid things... back them up. It really shouldn't be this hard. Fact is you are comparing things when there is no comparison.

 

[TexasTom]

The reason that the WLBT case might be relevant is that WLBT had a long and notorious history of suddenly developing "technical difficulties" whenever the network was feeding programming that they perceived as being biased against the management's segregationist viewpoints.

The WLBT comparison brings up a couple of interesting points in making a comparison with WHNT:

First, the "technical difficulty" claim has been used as a cover for censorship in the past -- that gives folks who see censorship by WHNT a basis for believing that it *could* happen, since it *did* happen in the past. However, the second point is that WLBT had a repeated pattern of experiencing "technical difficulties" whenever the network fed programs that they didn't want to carry; so far as I'm aware, no one has made that case with WHNT. If anyone can provide evidence that WHNT has done this sort of thing on multiple occasions, then the censorship claim suddenly starts to seem credible. On the other hand, if it is just this one instance, I'd really be hesitant to make accusations based on a single occurrence.

 

[DaleGriffin]

Ridiculous comparison.